Thursday, August 24, 2006


Joseph Pearce at the First Things blog reflects on a recent English judge's ruling on homosexual "marriage" and the corruption of language in the public discussion of the issue.


  1. I love the logic used in this article and the use of the English language against someone. People have no idea what power words still carry and why they need to be carefully chosen.

    As for my agreement with the article and its impact on our American society, I find the haggle between those for and against legal homosexual unions confusing. Maybe I will post on that another day.

  2. I concur with the article's intent, the refutation of the usage of the words, and John's comment.

    There is quite literally a chasm between the usage of language by the pluralistic community and the denotation of words in their buzzspeak.

    Words like "tolerance" have come to mean something very different than they really mean, and have been give connotations that have nothing to do with their meaning. We do well to learn to pick out those words, just as the author has done in this article.

  3. The author did a splendid job! And kudos to Sir Mark for his most logical ruling in the case.


Comments are moderated. I will gladly approve any comment that responds directly and politely to what has been posted.